> Do we have a sense of where we are with the small function group? If not
> done already, it might make sense to get that group done first, across all
> areas (statistical, financial, etc.) and package that up as something
> worthy of wider review.
All of the "small" functions were defined in the base document, so they
are already in there. Several people have looked them over already,
but please, I encourage everyone to "beat them up".
> Adding definitions for the remaining functions is
> unlikely to cause us to readdress syntactical issues.
Right. We had a syntax and the "small" function set; we've rejiggered
the syntax (with more participation) and dealt with other key issues.
Which is why we're adding the larger set.
> The upside would be that this would give an early heads up on the
> OpenFormula syntax recommendations, as reviewed and approved by the TC and
> made available for public review. It would also give implementors
> something to start working on. By the time they are done digesting that,
> we would probably have the medium set done and ready for review, etc. I
> like this more than saving all our good work for release only after we've
> defined the Gamma and Bessel functions <g>.
>
> What's the phrase, "release early and often"?
Aren't we already doing that? We're releasing about every week.
Implementors are already making changes to their apps based
on the draft spec - KOffice and wikiCalc just changed the association of "^",
and wikiCalc even went and implemented the small group.
It's not going up to the TC, true. Think that's critical?
--- David A. Wheeler
